Posts Tagged: "bankruptcy"

While many patent litigators have no plans to litigate in bankruptcy court, it is a possibility if the infringer of a client’s patent files for bankruptcy. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin recently conducted a Markman hearing. How did that happen?  After being sued for patent infringement in district court, the alleged infringer sought refuge in the bankruptcy court, staying the district court litigation. The plaintiff then filed a claim in the defendant’s bankruptcy case, which ultimately triggered the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. While rare, other bankruptcy courts have conducted claim construction proceedings. As discussed herein, the bankruptcy court ultimately granted a joint request for vacatur, prompting us to revisit the doctrine of vacatur.

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key company assets. For companies that license intellectual property from third parties, such as copyrights, trademarks or patents, the bankruptcy of a licensor could have a serious impact on the company’s ability to use those assets, which in turn could materially impair the value of the company assets or significantly hinder a company’s ability to serve its clients. This article will describe the consequences of bankruptcy on licensed intellectual property and outline steps licensees can take to protect their intellectual property rights in the face of a licensor’s insolvency.

The international economic disruption caused by COVID-19 presents unprecedented challenges. Thriving tech startup companies worth millions in January might find themselves struggling to stay afloat today. This article highlights the value of intellectual property (IP) that companies – particularly small companies without an IP department – can sometimes overlook in times of financial distress. The policy goals behind IP rights are at odds with the goals of bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy laws in the United States are “debtor friendly” and, in their most simplistic form, shield the party from certain debtors while forcing the sale of assets to pay other debts. But court ordered sales tend to undervalue complex property like IP. This is particularly apparent when it comes to patents.

The last few years have seen unprecedented changes in the legal landscape concerning data protection and privacy. The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became enforceable in May 2018. In July 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was enacted, and it became effective January 1, 2020. In response to the GDPR and the CCPA, many businesses are updating their privacy policies to comply with these laws. While crafting these updates, drafters should be cognizant of the effect such policies could have not only in the short term, but also down the road. For example, in the bankruptcy context, the content of a company’s privacy policy is important. If a privacy policy does not inform customers that their data may be sold in a bankruptcy proceeding, courts are likely to impose restrictions on the sale of that data. These restrictions can significantly decrease the value of such assets. Because of this reality, drafters should keep a few considerations in mind as they update privacy policies to comply with new laws and maximize the value of data assets.

As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a debtor’s rejection of a license agreement in bankruptcy proceedings does not mean the licensee no longer retains rights to the mark. Instead, the Court said that rejection of the contract – and therefore the trademark license – constitutes a breach of the contract/ license, not a revocation. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the High Court was asked to determine whether a trademark licensor’s rejection of a licensing agreement during bankruptcy proceedings terminates the rights of the licensee which would otherwise survive a licensor’s breach of contract under applicable non-bankruptcy law. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the rejection of an executory contract during bankruptcy has the same effect as breach of that contract outside of bankruptcy and thus cannot rescind rights previously granted by the contract. As a result, Tempnology’s rejection in bankruptcy of its agreement to license trademarks to Mission Product Holdings didn’t rescind Mission’s rights to continue using those trademarks.

Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology was argued last week at the Supreme Court and seeks to solve a circuit split regarding the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on trademark licenses. The case asks the nation’s highest court to determine if the rejection of a license in bankruptcy terminates the licensee’s right to to the trademarks or whether that license rejection only constitutes a breach by the licensor, in which case the licensee can still use the marks. The International Trademark Association (INTA) has dubbed the issue presented as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.” Following our in-depth guest report on the oral argument, IPWatchdog asked those following the case to provide their take on the import of the case, the oral argument, and potential implications of the justices’ questioning.

On Wednesday, February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, where the Court was asked to address one of the most important issues at the intersection of trademark law and bankruptcy law: whether a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the rights of the licensee to use that trademark. Taking seriously the language of the question presented, and generally acknowledging that 11 U.S.C. § 365(g) provides that rejection constitutes a “breach” of the contract, the justices focused on the remedies for breach outside of bankruptcy law and whether, because trademarks (and quality control issues) are involved, deviation from ordinary, contract law principles is warranted. Both the advocates and the justices returned to whether analogies, including with respect to breaches of apartment and photocopier leases, are apposite. The question of whether the case was moot also received some attention, though it seems unlikely that the case will be dismissed on that ground.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case will ask the nation’s highest court to determine whether 11 U.S.C. § 365, the statute in U.S. bankruptcy code regarding executory contracts and unexpired leases, requires that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement in bankruptcy terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law. The Supreme Court declined to take up a second question presented on whether an exclusive right to sell certain products practicing a patent in a particular geographic territory is a “right to intellectual property” within Section 365(n) of U.S. bankruptcy code.

In a case located at the intersection of bankruptcy and IP law, the Third Circuit ruled that, under the terms of a contract, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production and its affiliates did not acquire a perpetual worldwide license to use patents to convert conventional films into 3D.